Modes and Codes

Shyam Pandey

Professor Michael Salvo

ENGL629: Computers in language and writing   

March 23, 2019

Modes and Codes

Having been able to take this course with Dr. Michael Salvo has helped me understand some of the intricacies that involve in computers and writing. While the paper- and-pencil-based education system is still in ongoing mode, composition field has already encountered the pixel era that embraces digital technologies, such as open access, other digital and non-digital publishing and so on. With the advent of computers and technologies, writers have started employing modes of composing other than the alphabetic ones.  I have my own lived experiences of composing in two distinctly different transnational writing contexts, i.e., Nepal and the US. Also, I have transitioned from digitally isolated learning context to a context where digital technologies receive a top priority --all the way from the western part of the country, Nepal (—a rural district—Gulmi) to “a world-renowned, public research university that advances discoveries in science, technology, engineering and math” i.e. Purdue University. I have taught several groups of students who experienced drastic transitions like me in terms of their educational learning contexts. In the last two months I read and listened to multiple scholarships including the two books, 1) WAC and Second Language Writers: Research Toward Linguistically and Culturally Inclusive Programs and Practices and 2) Soundwriting Pedagogies. All these experiences instigated me to work in a project that looks upon the intricacies between digital media particularly computers and composition.

To be more specific, I have decided to observe the intersectionality between multimodality and translinguality as part of my final project and since the very two terms, “modes” and “codes” have frequently been used in the study of multimodality and translinguality, I have been working on to find the relations between these terms as part of my mid-term project. Despite having a heavily-relied upon alphabetic-based history, multimodal composition, with the advent of technologies and digitalization, has gained recent research attention in the field of composition studies. Scholars have been investigating a newer definition of literacy that suits the 21st-century writing context and justifies the role of multimodal composition. Along with alphabetic modes of composing, other modes of communication (i.e., images, sounds, music, colors, and animations) can work together to convey meaning better no matter whether it is in traditional print or electronic mode. While there are multiple other modes available, almost a decade ago, Selfe (2007) mentioned that the teachers of English depended on words that gave an impression that the composing process is exclusively done through alphabetic modes in print. Selfe focused on using multiple “modes” as opposed to a single mode.

Similarly, translingual orientation has received recent attention as a new movement in the field of composition. Horner, et al. (2011) argue that since “our communities, the nation, and the world has always been multilingual rather than monolingual”, the traditional approaches in writing class do not work well to address the needs of our diverse student populations. The new paradigm, as they advocate, a translingual approach, “sees the difference in language not as a barrier to overcome or as a problem to manage, but as a resource for producing meaning in writing, speaking, reading and listening” (303). They urge on what students bring with their diverse experiences rather what they don’t bring in the writing classroom. Students coming from such diverse social contexts may not always be better in composing in alphabetic form rather their composing intelligence might foster more when we as a teacher create an environment to utilize their linguistic as well as non-linguistic codes. 

Figure 1) My in-class mind map about my final project

         In this way, the terms “modes” and “codes” have been used extensively in scholarships on translingual writing and multimodal composition. While defining the term, “translingual”, scholars use the very term, “codes” quite often whereas the term “modes” has been used more by the scholars in the field of multimodal composition. But analyzing these two terms more closely can provide better ideas to understand the relationship between multimodality and translinguality and address some of the complexities that lie to understand computers and its role in composing, multilinguality and teaching composition. Jody Shipka (2016) in her paper, “Translinguality in/and Processes of Making: Changing Dispositions and Practice” talks how translingual approach and multimodal composing can expand each other’s scope by having some cross over understanding. Similarly, Bruce Horner and Cynthia Selfe (2015) in their paper, “Translinguality, transmodality, and Difference: Exploring Dispositions and Change in Language and Learning” discuss the possible intersections and distinctiveness of these two orientations. My project situates in this gap and research urgency and will analyze why, how, and to what extent translinguality and multimodality differentiate and intersect to each other (see my mind map in Figure 1 below). For now, coming back to the discussion of this mid-term project, let me present some of the instances how codes have been used in different contexts.  

“The construct of translingualism is meant to highlight the fluidity across and between languages, taking a holistic perspective rather than compartmentalizing different codes” (Tardy, 2018, p. 181).

“Codemeshing also accommodates the possibility of mixing communicative modes and diverse symbol systems (other than language)” Canagarajah, 2011, p. 403).

“We see the dynamic translanguaging characteristics of her final draft. Yet, some codes are deployed gradually” (Canagarajah, 2011, p. 404).

“…this process of negotiation is particularly meaningful for students anxious to master the codes of academic discourse, especially because their discursive practices are most likely to have to take place in the kind of postmodern capitalist world…” (Min-Zhan Lu, 1994, p. 455).

“From such a view, a translingual approach is simply another permutation of a catalog of arguments for conventional multilingualism and for tolerating diverse language “codes” and “varieties” and the mixing of these” (Lu and Horner, 2013, p. 585).

Below are few instances of the use of the term, “mode”:

Emerging with different modes, genres, materials, cultural practices, communicative technologies, and language varieties” itself changes what we know and how we come to know it and opens up new possibilities for knowing and being (Jody Sipka, 2014).

“Writing is multimodal, with multiple semiotic features (space, visuals), ecological resources (objects, people, texts), and modalities (oral, visual, and aural) contributing to its production and interpretation” (Canagarajah, 2014, p. 440).

“Multiple modes interacting at the same time gives the reader many “voices” to absorb” (Alexander, et al. 2011-12, p.)

“…combining modes of meaning into a single composition (the New London Group, p. 84)

“…a multimodal essay is one that combines two or more modes of composing, such as audio, video, photography, words, etc. into some multimodal essay (a video, website, hypertext, poster board, comic strip, scrapbook, collage, etc.) (the New London Group, p. 84).

From the assertions above, we can tell that the nuances of these two terms “modes” and “codes” are different. According to Merriam Webster’s Dictionary (2009), codes are symbols for communication or a system of symbols (as letters or numbers) used to represent assigned (p. 239). On the other hand, the Merriam Webster’s Dictionary (2009) defines mode means a form or manifestation of expression or possible customary, or preferred way of doing something i.e., a manifestation, form, or arrangement of being (p. 797).

Modes refer to the context through which meaning is conveyed. As we know the fact that how genre plays a role in the meaning-making process, relying on any single genre doesn’t prepare us to communicate well in this technologically influenced multidimensional world. Writers should compose in different contexts and circumstances. In this way, modes are socially and culturally situated. Gunther (2010) mentions “mode is a socially shaped and culturally given semiotic resource for making meaning. Image, writing, layout, music, gesture, speech, moving image, soundtrack, and 3D objects are examples of modes used in representation and communication” (p.79). As each social object and phenomenon, we have in our society is socially and culturally influenced (such as food, buildings, clothes, and so on), the meaning is socially made as well. The meaning of color is socially built as well. The white color is a symbol of celebration and happiness in the western context whereas it is not taken equally in the Asian context. One simple example, white color dresses are famous for special ceremonies like wedding ceremony in western contexts like the USA. On the contrary, it is used in the funeral ceremony in South Asia especially in Nepal. This has implications in composition, production, design, and meaning-making processes. If different modes function to convey certain meaning and if we just rely on using the linguistic modes, we are deprived of the full meaning-making process. Gunther further argues, “language has to be seen in a new light: no longer as central and dominant, fully acceptable of expressing all meanings. But as one means among others for making meaning, each of the specific” (p.79). Involving social semiotic resources can help to enhance the meaning-making process.

During my AAAL 2019 conference participation, I got a chance to talk briefly with Prof. Suresh Canagarajah about these two terminologies. As he was busy rushing to attend different sessions, Dr. Canagarajah briefly mentioned that codes are “what” whereas modes are “how” in which the former means a certain symbol whereas the latter refers the way or the manner. To my follow up question, whether any one of the terms is more important than other, he abruptly denied that and gave an example of a South Asian meal, “chicken thali” in which the role of rice and chicken is equally important. Instead of asking whether chicken had a better role than rice, we should focus on their combination and relish the deliciousness of the meal rather giving precedence to one of these ingredients. A similar analogy can be applied to a meaning-making process where modes and codes equally play important roles. Modes and codes have symbiotic relationships rather competing with each other in a meaning-making process. Like the 20th-century communication process, there is a danger of falling into a single privileged mode of communication (i.e., alphabetic) if we don’t pay attention to the latest updates in the world of communication. Codes can’t always be in linguistic shape; instead, it can appear beyond linguistic forms, such as media, gestures, and other semiotic resources. Codes are adaptive, emergent, multimodal, multisensory, multilateral, and therefore multi-dimensional.

The usage of modes and codes both have been historically imbalanced and disproportionate. Certain modes and codes got privileged roles while some others got neglected in the past. However, this will not work in 21st-century literacy practice. Currently, our composition field has been prioritizing linguistic modes—especially written form more than any other. But since the adaptation of any particular mode goes in line with the social views, knowledge making, and their epistemological underpinnings, re-mixing or embracing other new modes takes a slow process in composing.

References:

Kress, G. (2010). Multimodality: A social semiotic approach to contemporary communication.

New York, NY: Routledge

Anderson, D. (2008). The low bridge to high benefits: Entry-level multimedia, literacies, and

motivation. Computers and Composition, 25, 40-60.

Anderson, D., Atkins, A., Ball, C., Millar, K. H., Selfe, C., & Selfe, R. (2006). Integrating

multimodality into composition curricula: Survey methodology and results from a CCCC research grant. Composition Studies, 34(2), 59-83.

Clark, J. E. (2010). The digital imperative: Making the case of a 21^st-century pedagogy.

Computers and Composition, 27, 27-35.

DePamla, M. J. & Alexander, K. P. (2015). A bag of snakes: Negotiating the challenges of

multimodal composition. Computers and Composition, 37, 182-200.

DePalma, M. J. & Ringer, J. M. (2011). Toward a theory of adaptive transfer: Expanding

disciplinary discussions of ‘‘transfer’’ in second-language writing and composition

studies. Journal of Second Language Writing, 20, 134-147.

George, D. (2002). From analysis to design: Visual communication in the teaching of writing.

College Composition and Communication, 54(1), 11-39.

Hess, K. (2007). Composing multimodal assignments. In C. L. Selfe (Eds.), Multimodal

composition: Resources for teachers (pp.29-38). Cresskill, NJ: Hampton Press Inc.

Kress, G. (2003). Literacy in the new media age. London: Routledge.

Kress, G. & Leeuwen, T. v. (2001). Multimodal discourse: Modes and media in contemporary

communication. London: Hodder Arnold, 2001.

Kubler, J. A. (2015). Collaborative multimodal pedagogy in the first-year stretch composition

classroom. Journal of Global Literacies, Technologies, and Emerging Pedagogies, 3(1), 322-334.

Lier, v. L. (2004). The ecology and semiotics of language learning: A sociocultural perspective.

Boston: Kluwer Academic. 

New London Group. (1996). A pedagogy of multiliteracies: Designing social futures. Harvard

Education Review 66(1), 60-92.

O’Halloran, K. L., Tan, S., & Marrissa, K. L. E. (2017). Multimodal analysis for critical

thinking. Learning, Media and Technology, 42(2), 147-170.

Onore, C. (1989). The student, the teacher and the text: Negotiating meaning through response.

In C. M. Anson (Eds.), Writing and response: Theory, practice, and research (pp. 231-260). Urbana, IL, National Council of Teachers of English.

Selfe, C. L. (2004). Toward new media texts: Taking up the challenges of visual literacy. In A. F.

Wysocki, J. Johnson-Eilola, C. Selfe, & G. Sirc (Eds.), Writing new media: Theory and applications for expanding the teaching of composition (pp. 67-110). Logan: Utah State Press.

Selfe, C. L. (2007). Multimodal composition: Resources for teachers. Cresskill, NJ: Hampton

Press Inc.

Selfe, C. L. (1999). Technology and literacy: A story about the perils of not paying

attention. College Composition and Communication 50(3), 411–436.

Shin, D. & Cimasko, T. (2008). Multimodal Composition in a College ESL Class: New Tools,

Traditional Norms. Computers and Composition, 25, 376-395.

Shipka, J. (2011). Toward a composition made whole. Pittsburgh, PA: University of Pittsburgh

Press. 

Skains, R. L. (2017). The adaptive process of multimodal composition: How developing the tacit

knowledge of digital tools affects creative writing. Computers and Composition, 43, 106-117.

Smith, B. E. (2018). Collaborative multimodal composing: Tracing the unique partnerships of

three pairs of adolescents composing across three digital projects. The United Kingdom Literacy Association, 1-8.

Tardy, C. M. (2005). Expressions of disciplinarity and individuality in a multimodal genre.

Computers and Composition, 22, 319-336.  

Yancey, K. B. (2004). Made Not Only in Words: Composition in a New Key. College

Composition and Communication, 56(2), 297-328.  

Yang, Y. D. (2012). Multimodal composing in digital storytelling. Computers and composition,

29, 221-238.

Yi, Y. & Choi, J. (2015). Teachers’ views of multimodal practices in K-12 classrooms: Voices

from teachers in the United States. TESOL Quarterly, 49(4), 838-998.

Yi, Y. (2014). Possibilities and challenges of multimodal literacy practices in teaching and

learning English as an additional language. Language and Linguistics Compass, 8(4), 158-169.